<p>Posts #155 tk21769 and #156 bookworm absolutely spot on</p>
<p>sax, I wouldn’t say he was dressed to survive. I would say he was dressed to last as long as possible so he could kill as many people as possible. I am not a gun expert, but I believe the AR-15 replica he used fired a much smaller bullet than a real assault rifle (did I read they were .22xx caliber?). This might explain the large number of surviving wounded. Also, the VA Tech shooter didn’t need an assault weapon. </p>
<p>I find both sides of the anti/pro gun argument silly in this case. To the vehement gun control advocates who say we do not have the courage or moral fiber to change the law: Would you feel better if the guy entered the theater with a suicide vest (easily concealed under his Batman costume) and blew himself up, killing 35 and wounding 100?</p>
<p>And I have read comments elsewhere about how if someone in that theater had a gun the outcome would have been different. How absurd! A dark theater, with tear gas, and the shooter had body armor and (possibly) a riot helmet on. An armed theater goer would have more likely killed an additional innocent person and also very likely could have been shot by police who arrived on the scene in less than 2 minutes.</p>
<p>But I digress… this is no place for a rational reasoned discussion of both sides of the argument. The only reason to discuss gun control in this context is to jump on the emotional trauma that accompanies an event like this.</p>
<p>tk21769, very good suggestion.</p>
<p>On a different note, I am struck by how long it took them to give family members answers about whether their loved one was one of the dead in the theater. It seems just cruel for them to wait over 18 hours for this information… figuring the shooting took place just after midnight, and they did not talk to the families until last night. I know they would not want to let the families into the theater, but to at least take photos provided by the family in, and come back with an answer regarding whether it appears that their loved one’s body is there would have been a bit more humane. There were a reported 200+ police officers involved… someone surely would have had time to do this. It must be against police policy (what if there was an incorrect identification?), but still… it seems like they should be able to do this with some caveats about final confirmation once the bodies can be removed.</p>
<p>As part of the advanced program in Denver, a James Holmes had been listed as making a presentation in May about Micro DNA Biomarkers in a class named “Biological Basis of Psychiatric and Neurological Disorders.”</p>
<p>In academic achievement “he was at the top of the top,” recalled Riverside Chancellor Timothy P. White.</p>
<p>Read more: [Alleged</a> Colorado gunman called shy, a top student, a loner - Lowell Sun Online](<a href=“Alleged Colorado gunman called shy, a top student, a loner – Lowell Sun”>Alleged Colorado gunman called shy, a top student, a loner – Lowell Sun)</p>
<p>I wonder if he has an account at College Confidential.</p>
<p>Since there is, unfortunately, little chance we will see significant tightening of the laws limiting access to weapons, perhaps it would be better to improve the funding for training and reimbursement for quality mental health services.</p>
<p>If Target can analyze all the data from purchases & be able to predict which customers are pregnant to an 85% accuracy (even absent purchases such as pregnancy tests, baby items etc.) so they can send specific coupons to drive sales, I can’t imagine why a national gun/ammunition database couldn’t use data analysis to figure out who is preparing for something violent. </p>
<p>I wonder what our Founding Fathers would think to see that their 2nd amendment (written when muskets were the cutting edge weapon) was being used to support assault rifles & hollow point bullets. I have yet to hear a good reason why a non-military/police person should be allowed to buy those. Or a kevlar vest for that matter. I’d think if you were legitimately going to be in a situation where a kevlar vest was necessary, then your organization would provide one for you. </p>
<p>I’m not anti-gun. In the environment I grew up in (both geographically & family) no one had guns. But I understand why hunters want/need them, and why people would want them for protection (although no one can ever explain this to me: if you have a handgun in your home & have followed the safety recommendations (i.e. gun locked away, ammunition separate) how are you supposed to unlock it and load it in the case of a home invasion?) </p>
<p>A lot of pro-gun groups and individuals think that any type of regulation is a step on the slippery slope of government “taking our guns away” but I think the above poster with the recommendations about handling guns like motor vehicles is spot on. </p>
<p>As for the mental illness side, once someone is over 18 there is no way for a family to have access to full medical information. Heck, even when they’re under 18, the psych has client/patient confidentiality & doesn’t have to share specifics with the parents unless there is a clear & present danger. Just because the family wasn’t surprised doesn’t mean they didn’t try to get him help. It’s a hard system to navigate.</p>
<p>It’s shocking to think he was so isolated socially that no one could have known he was buying firearms. It’s shocking to think that a person could on one day be totally "normal’ and then just snap without any warning signs. It’s saddening to think that there are so many kids walking around with mental problems. I agree with jym, we need to identify these kids and get them help. My heart hurts for all the families.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If this could be adequately enforced, which I suspect it couldn’t-- it isn’t for motor vehicles, I think this would be as good an idea as any for all but eliminating guns in the U.S., because I can’t think of any insurance company that would touch this with a ten foot pole. My field is specialty risks and I’d be surprised if even any in our arena would deal with this. Granted, a lot of things get insured that shouldn’t be, but that works both ways-- psycho could slip through the cracks at the insurance company just as easily as he can any other way. We aren’t as good at assessing risk as one would like to think, especially once we’re already talking high risk to begin with. And it only takes one gun slipping through the cracks to allow for a massacre. I think this idea is on the right track but I don’t think it’s remotely practical.</p>
<p>ETA:</p>
<p>And personally, though I am not interested in digging my heels in to fight for this, in my opinion it’s pretty clear that the second amendment as it was written is about militias, which is imho going in a completely different direction than second amendment discourse has been taking in recent decades. Just because we got away with that redirection, again imho, doesn’t make it right or make it what the founding fathers intended, if what a bunch of men intended in the 1700s is really the most important consideration in this day and age. It is interesting to me that so many who rely on a strict constructionist argument to oppose gun control don’t appear to have ever actually read the amendment they are relying on.</p>
<p>Tis is happening all over the world. Usually it’s in the name of land, or for a government, or against, but this is happening to innocents everywhere. This is not to diminish this horrific act. But we are not special. Mothers cry everyday for the loss of their children in syria, in Africa, in south america, for the missing</p>
<p>I find us a bit arrogant in our national grieving as if we are so special this should never happen, well to us anyway.</p>
<p>I am deeply saddened but I am not so surprised. We have been very lucky to live in relative peace for so long.</p>
<p>jym & momofthreeboys, I think the resources ARE out there. But it is impossible to force someone over 18 to get mental health treatment - period. I was in tears one day seven years ago begging a sheriff’s deputy to put a 72 hours psych hold on my brother when he experienced a psychotic break. They refused because he was able to pass for normal in a conversation with the officer. A week later he committed suicide (with a gun, but that is another discussion). When he died, a loaded deer rifle with the safety off was on his kitchen table, which looks out on a residential street. He didn’t shoot anyone else, but it appears that he was considering it.</p>
<p>It is rare that someone with mental health issues recognizes their own problem and seeks treatment. Many families are begging for help from authorities and the medical community on this, but until the person acts out violently, nothing is done. The pattern repeats again and again, in big news stories like this one and little ones like my brother’s.</p>
<p>
Unfortunately it’s not so simple. This shooter apparently started out with a non-high powered weapon - a shotgun. A shotgun can kill a person just like an AR-15 or M-16 in a closer range like a movie theater, mall, etc. People who don’t know anything about guns latch onto the so-called ‘assault weapons’ but in reality a standard hunting rifle or shotgun can cause a lot of damage. </p>
<p>
I’ve been to the UK many times over the past 35 years so I’m not shocked. The UK has come to realize that even in their society with heavier gun control they’re having more and more issues with people using guns (and bombs) to murder.</p>
<p>
I don’t know that would have done much good in this case. It’s difficult when the individual has no prior record and has been a law abiding citizen to date with no explicit evidence of any issues. That seems to be the case in a number of these events.</p>
<p>intparent-
At the risk of shifting this conversation to another issue let me just say that what is happening to the funding for adequate training and also for reimbursement for mental helath services is horrible. Maybe the NRA should be expected to contribute a portion of their coffer to fund mental health education and treatment.</p>
<p>I am so sorry about your brother. And I agree - the fine line between protection of the public vs a person’s individual rights is a very thin one at times. The deputy was WRONG in your case. It wasnt his place to decide if your brother was or was not a danger to himself or others. It was merely his job to transport him to a person who was in the position to evaluate that. I am so sorry.</p>
<p>GladGradDad, if he had been forced to stop and reload sooner, the outcome of this could have been fewer deaths and injuries. Of course it would be terrible if only a handful of people were shot, but these weapons allow a slaughter that is unconscionable.</p>
<p>jym, I suspect that you or a family member work in a field related to mental health care. My brother had health care, and it would have covered mental health treatment in a manner similar to other illnesses. In his case it was not an issue of funding. Regarding your comment on what the deputy should have done, the civil commitment rules vary from state to state. In our state, a person must be “in danger of causing injury to self or others if not immediately detained”. Police will not transport the person to a facility (in fact, can get in trouble if they do) if that standard is not met. You may think it “wasn’t his place” to not transport my brother (unwillingly) to a hospital, but he was following the laws of our state. :(</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I could not agree more.</p>
<p>intparent-
In our state 2 friends/family members to petition the court or a physician, psychologist or social worker who has seen the person within the past 48 hrs can sign the emergency evaluation/commitment form and with that signed document the sheriff is to transport the person to the emergency receiving facility where they will be evaluated. That is a shame, no an outrage, if the system in your state permits someone without adequate mental health training to make that decision. I am so sorry .</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I see a big difference between killing one person and killing dozens. I’m not saying killing one is acceptable.</p>
<p>Is it legal for a civilian to own a weapon that can shoot up to 6000 rounds per minute? What’s the legal limit?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s interesting that friends/family can sign the order. I think that in most states, only a physician/psychologist/mental health worker or a “peace officer” (or a judge) can make the determination that an emergency hold is warranted.</p>
<p>Some information about the states’ laws is here <a href=“http://treatmentadvocacycenter.org/storage/documents/Emergency_Hospitalization_for_Evaluation.pdf[/url]”>http://treatmentadvocacycenter.org/storage/documents/Emergency_Hospitalization_for_Evaluation.pdf</a></p>
<p>The 2 friends/family must sign an affadavit and get a court order to get the person transported to an emergency receiving facility for evaluation.</p>
<p>My job for years was to go to hospitals, police stations, personal residences and crisis situations to evaluate individuals and sign involuntary commitment orders. Some one has to sign and put in writing what the individual has done in order for me to sign and take away someone’s rights</p>
<p>The law was very clear. The person had to be threatening harm to himself and /or others AND have taken action toward that end. </p>
<p>Threatening alone was not legally enough to have someone’s rights taken away.</p>
<p>Additionally this only allowed the person to be taken to an institution where a psychiatrist would evaluate them and then decide if they would keep them for 72 hours.</p>
<p>Often times more experienced patients would agree to sign themselves in only to turn around and sign themselves back out as soon as they could.</p>
<p>So often it was my lone judgement on who was seen. </p>
<p>Often in the hospital it was a psychiatric resident making these decisions in the middle of the night on his own.</p>
<p>Can this system be better …oh he’ll yes.</p>
<p>sax and jym (and anyone else with knowledge): What do you think should be changed to make the system better?</p>
<p>I completely understand wanting to protect civil liberties–there is something troubling about the government forcing people to receive medical treatment. On the other hand, I have read that many people with psychotic symptoms do not realize that they have any kind of disorder at all–so they are trapped in a vicious circle, unable to accept treatment because they don’t relaize they have a disorder.</p>